Collecting problems

[Esthlos]

@Esthlos: Please stay on-topic

This is on-topic.
It's a balance problem, which exists in multiplayer as well as singleplayer games.
These balance problems limit the number of viable strategies, which in turn makes KaM more repetitive.
Aren't problems like this exactly what this thread is about?

By the way, something similar can be said for the Bowmen/Crossbowmen balance too:

by the law of large numbers, their damage over time is representable as:
DamagePerSecond = AttackSpeed*Attack*Number/(100*TargetDefence*TargetHP)

So, for Crossbowmen that would be (using abbreviations for simplicity) XAS*120*XN/(100*XTD*HP)
For Bowmen instead BAS*60*BN/(100*BTD*HP)

(Defence can be different vs Bows or Crossbows, but HP is never, regardless of if you consider the total HP or single units' HP)

On average, BAS is the double of XAS

So Bowmen DPS= 2*XAS*60*BN/(100*BTD*HP) , or XAS*120*BN/(100*BTD*HP)

The ratio of their DPSs thus is BN*XTD/(XN*BTD)

So, against non-shielded targets, the ratio of their effectiveness is BN/XN
Against Wooden Shielded targets, it's (2,25/3 is 0,75): 0,75*BN/XN
Against Iron Shielded targets, it's (3,25/4 is 0,8125): 0,8125*BN/XN

What does this mean?
Well, first of all that Crossbowmen's penetration bonus is more effective against Wooden Shields than Iron Shields (which makes sense, I suppose).

Secondly, that against unshielded enemies the best ranged unit is always the one you can make/keep more of.

Thirdly, that Crossbowmen are better when you can make/keep more than 0,75*Bowmen vs Wooden Shields or 0,8125*Bowmen vs Iron Shields.
This means that they are better in the early-to-mid game, since Iron production is faster to start up.

But they get worse as Leather production gets going, catches up and eventually ends up on top (don't forget that Armor and Weapons Workshops work slightly faster than Armor and Weapons Smithies, plus they use unlimited resources).

Sadly, most of the early-to-mid game happens in Peacetime, which hides a lot of Crossbowmen's viability:
according to this tutorial by sado, you should have Iron production going by minute 20 and Leather production going by minute 30.

Since the tutorial doesn't actually specify at which exact minute you should have the workshops: if the 2 Armor Smithies are running by minute 20, then for Bowmen to catch up by the 60 minutes mark you need to have the 3-4 workshops running by minute:

• vs Unshielded: 39,68
  vs Wood Shield: 32,91
  vs Iron Shield: 34,99

(The tutorial suggests 2 Armor Smithies and 3-4 Armor Workshops; the number of Weapons Workshops and Smithies suggested is appropriate, so doing this math with either is indifferent)

If instead we take 30 as the time when the Workshops should start producing:
Without considering that you should have more Workshops than Smithies, Bowmen become more useful than Crossbowmen approximately at minute:

• vs Unshielded: 100
  vs Wood Shield: never
  vs Iron Shield: never

Considering the number of workshops and smithies working, Bowmen become more useful than Crossbowmen approximately at minute:

• vs Unshielded: 30,32
  vs Wood Shield: 40,98
  vs Iron Shield: 36,68

So, if that tutorial is affidable, either you rush the first battles before minute 30-40 or Bowmen are always better than Crossbowmen.
And with a peacetime of 60-90 minutes, such a rush won't ever happen.

Obviously, all this math assumes no losses suffered; before the end of Peacetime this is correct, and after that it mostly depends on how dearly you keep your ranged units alive.

[Krom]

This is a topic dedicated to collecting the game's problems.
Suggesting "soldiers are poorly balanced" would be enough.

There are several points about that problem that diminish it's importance/validity:
- From my impression and others opinions this could be a problem, but it lacks proof - if it actually exists.
- Solving almost any of the listed problems would cause the balance off-balance . So rebalancing would be needed anyway.

Re-posting wall of text (already linked earlier) is more offtopic. Please don't do that.

[Esthlos]

This is a topic dedicated to collecting the game's problems.
Suggesting "soldiers are poorly balanced" would be enough.

Ok: soldiers are poorly balanced.

Re-posting wall of text (already linked earlier) is more offtopic. Please don't do that.

This is a completely different wall of text.

Does this mean you didn't read either?

Is this why you're dismissing it as "lacking proof"?

[Krom]

@Estlos: From brief scrolling, both lengthy posts explore the same topic of calculating the balance. Sorry I don't have time to read it all in details right now

As mentioned above - "Soldiers are unbalanced" is a good enough problem description.
And as mentioned above, I'm inclining towards dismissing this problem until it gets more tests in actual MP games.
Marketplace controversy had a lot of theoretical proofs going, yet in-game tests showed that the Market is behaving like planned - with 2.2 tradeoff factor.

There is an interesting side to this problem - if the game was collecting anonymised stats we could have had a huge base of games (like thousands) and with the right metrics we could see how many axes equal to how many pikes vs bows.

[Leeuwgie]

The slow start is because this is one of few games where you need to build roads to connect houses to the storehouse so imo this is more part of the gameplay then a problem in itself. I do agree on towerspam being a problem when playing on campy maps (but only if you play against good players). The game has really improved a lot over the years so there are only minor things that could be tweaked, like:

- Find ways to bring the scout back to the game.
- Serfs not getting resources like stone from the closest building (storehouse) but from the quarry (if it's further away) first.
- Builders blocking the entrance of a building (while serfs still need to bring building materials).
- Woodcutter's planting trees while they can't cut them because in the meantime there is a building placed between the tree and the wc so the walking distance is too long.
- Illegal scouting before peacetime
- Buildingplans (usually for coalmines) from your ally who already has left the game and can't demolish (to build more coalmines for yourself). -

[Michalpl]

Nr 8

leaves Fill with AI
laggers kick for ping that is above limit that has been set in a lobby
Newbs will get 50% of extra stuff in storehouse

[Lord Dan]

1. Kam is a complicated game - originally the main problem was frustrating bugs, like archers marching into enemy forces when you clicked attack, instead of standing and firing - you had to figure out ALOT! but then you could enjoy the rest of the beautifully designed game. So certain people disliked the game, others loved what they loved so much that they would stick with it. (some for 15+ years now!
- so the game needs ACCESSABILITY - not alienation of new players, but plenty to sustain unlimited gameplay. Call it the learning curve, which every game has. It just needs to be balanced, but also theoretically unlimited.
So: This is not a problem.

2. Peacetime with acceleration is an excellent fix for this problem. This is a minor problem at worst.

3. I think there should be more maps that start with the basic buildings - 2-3 stonecutters and 2 woodcutters and a sawmill, maybe 1 farm even.
It not only looks cuter, maybe, but cuts off 5-10 minutes of gameplay.
This is also a matter of what the players prefer. Its mainly a time saver.
Minor or not a problem

4. Peacetime in MP - having more things happening is a matter of higher level game design. If you change the game in some ways, maybe you won't need it - eg. more defences.
Some peacetime gives time for teams to communicate, make plans, etc
Peacetime is very good at this stage.

5. Collisions and group reforming has been hugely improved since KAM. I have been through alot of military drilling (soldiers forming up in ranks and files) - so I can see this was important to original game designers.
I don't think it should be changed too much - Not a problem

6. This is higher level game design.
Infantry is unrecallable after engaged - this is partly a realistic facet of combat. It's also a key tactic in KAM.
If you don't like it - separate your troops. Personally I think people massing up and charging in 50-200 units in one group is nooby and you deserve to be penalised. You don't want to micro and fight strategically - you should be encouraged to fight that way.
Winning my mass and zerging is very boring compared to a strategic, realistic game.
Higher game speed is going to be critical here, because you cannot control and manouver as well - so you have to play according to the normal game time.
(so maybe its a problem with players picking higher game speeds, when others like me prefer slower/normal game speed)
I like this - not a problem to me. But there are many improvements to be made to combat.

7. Minor issue - will be fixed by higher level design
This is people not knowing how to play, or noobs who mass tower.
In short, if you have an army and control the field, you don't need static defences (almost all RTS games show this). in Kam, I use towers spread further apart, in key locations. Mainly so that they can support and integrate with troops (ie allowing manouvering between them, and slowing down enemy movement/advances, and creating stronger strategic positions for my army.)
The towers themselves suck - they A. miss alot, B. only hold 5 shots, C. Take a long time to reload, D. Cost resources. Fix the towers is more important (or don't use them

8. Replace leavers with AI - the AI seems stronger than the average players I've seen!! but it depends on the map.

9. Minor issue - many ways to fix - base design, defence buildings, defence facets like fighting civilians or calls to arms for temporary fighting civilians (like AOE3/Warcraft3).
eg. let serfs turn into militia temporarily if they run to barracks or storehouse... etc

10. Non issue - this is not 100% finished game

11. Put in an account system when the time is right. All we really need is a matchmaking system with some ranks - only to balance teams.
If cannot do that, then having record of wins and losses helps show experience level and skill, when making teams for a game.

12. Minor issue
I don't even know how units fight (hit % and HP etc) so I will ask you about that next I know how they fight from experience - I don't know the math.
My building knowledge come from experience too. To be honest, part of the game is learning the optimal building ratios - showing the math in game might be cheating

13. Not a problem at this point! Maps is one of KAM's strengths! Later the games design will decide how big maps should be.
Right now, game speed messes up the dynamic between base and map sizes.

14. Not really a problem.
Game speed is affecting this again. People wont hold back and maneouver for long periods, because its too hard compared to production at high speed (my biggest problem with the game)
Its also that players mass up and throw their armies against each other, and often its a one sided battle!
There is no time for getting hungry because of imbalanced army sizes (because of different skill levels), so players don't build their bases to supply food for an army - this dynamic should be encouraged differently, so it will change base designs to be more sustainable. I think it would make the game alot more fun.

So in short - this problem of no troop hunger is because of a different problem:
A. Army massing up vs a tactical/strategic game.
B. People are inclined to mass up because static defences are kind of weak. (easy to penetrate and kill weak base)
Its also imbalanced player skill in many games.
These are the two main problems then, I think

I hope this helps - I will try to write my own small list of problems soon

[Ben]

8. Replace leavers with AI - the AI seems stronger than the average players I've seen!! but it depends on the map.

This is the best thing I've ever read on this forum.

[Krom]

@Dan: To sum up - none of the mentioned problems are problems. Hard to agree with that. What are the real problems then?

@Ben: See, it depends on the map :-P
Prooves how bad all existing maps are - none lets the AI spread its wings!

[Lord Dan]

I have only very minor suggestions for problems.

1. Labourers are inefficient if you are building towns in multiple directions (mainly with 15+. You can handle this by playing according to how they work, but the rules of - building plans 1st, then roads, then buildings (I think thats the rule) can cause the problem. They spend too much time walking instead of building things ready to be built in their area. But again, the best way is to build less roads while you want buildings to be finished. (just saying it could be worked on, with priority based on distance as well)

2. Labourers block each other from receiving bricks when building roads and buildings (may not need changing and I dont see an easy fix - except to let serfs walk over building plans!)

3. Tendency for massing up battles, with players using 1 group for all of that unit type - people are using 50-200 units in one group. The maximum I would usually use is 20, and then control them strategically. Maybe this doesn't matter - just depends how people like to play. But I don't think its a problem in pro games with less peacetime - pros will come out with similar armies that aren't big, so in this case will be working as intended
Large scale games it kind of ruins the tactic and manouevring dynamic. So either let noobs learn how to handle troops, or adjust the game to encourage them to change.

4. Similar to the last point - players are building unsustainable, rush towns - where they practice build timings to have the biggest army at the end of peacetime, and then fight a desperate battle - the victor in the field crushes the other's base.
But, if the close battle in the field didn't result in end of game, the winner would have actually lost because he didn't build enough food. (should he lose because didn't build food? I think that is KAM's original design)
So maybe it should be easier to defend, so games must last past the first wave of fighting (I mean, almost always)
Or maybe this doesn't matter, and its balanced enough already.
(this is probably the biggest problem - gameplay wise. Players are not encouraged to use all the strategies the game offers - food, positioning in battle, using the unique terrain of the map, building strategic defenses. Its just build timings and throwing in the biggest army - all RTS games suffer and become boring from this. Should we discuss this?)

5. Clicking on army groups - some units like axemen, there is 'empty cursor select space'? between units in the same group - when you are trying to click on them quick to select and move, the cursor doesn't select them because its inbetween the units. (very minor issue - but maybe easy to fix)

These are just off my head for now - really I think the game is almost perfect as it is - if it's aim is to model and improve KAM, it is 95-98% complete.

I think the main problem and solution will lie in base defences. Improving the watchtower, or adding something like a stationary trebuchet, that has a long range, slow rate of fire, but throws 3 weak stones like the old Catapult from TPR - it would counter massed archers but not melee units. It would compliment the watchtower very well. (but we don't want to encourage too much turtling, so it should be expensive)

[Ben]

"Problems" 1-3 are not problems with the game but problems with players being lazy or just incompetent. Why should the game be dumbed down to cater to the needs of lobotomies?

[Lord Dan]

I agree, but counterintuitive game design can make new players think its "stupid" on top of being annoying. Its acceptable for an old game.

[Ben]

I don't see these as counter intuitive at all. Also, every game (especially RTS) has mechanics that aren't clear at first. It's part of learning. Nowadays people (including myself really) are too lazy to learn how to play a new RTS but I don't believe we need to dumb everything down to "Clash of Clans" level just to make the masses appeased.

[Krom]

Me on the same boat, RTS games are to be hardcore by their nature

[Lord Dan]

No, totally agree but new games are easier to pick up if actions and consequence make sense. Would you like me to delete that suggestion, about the way builders work? And maybe #3 as well, because new game design will handle the way players should use their armies. ?
What I think should be discussed is new things to bring in that will encourage use of more kinds of strategies - "food, positioning in battle, using the unique terrain of the map, building strategic defenses."
To start with - a simple improvement in base defences - even just improving the watchtower, could fix all the major problems from GAME OVER when you lose the first battle, even by a small degree